Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37020901›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2023

Evaluating the Performance of a Commercially Available Artificial Intelligence Algorithm for Automated Detection of Pulmonary Embolism on Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Karim A Zaazoue, Mathew R McCann, Ahmed K Ahmed, Isabel O Cortopassi, Young M Erben, Brent P Little, Justin T Stowell, Beau B Toskich, Charles A Ritchie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Karim A ZaazoueDivision of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Mathew R McCannDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Ahmed K AhmedDivision of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Isabel O CortopassiDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Young M ErbenDepartment of Radiology, and the Department of Vascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Brent P LittleDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Justin T StowellDivision of Cardiothoracic Imaging, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Beau B ToskichDivision of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Charles A RitchieDivision of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the performance of a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for the detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed of all contrast-enhanced chest CT scans of patients admitted for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. Based on the original radiology reports, all PE-positive examinations were included (n=527). Using a reversed-flow single-gate diagnostic accuracy case-control model, a randomly selected cohort of PE-negative examinations (n=977) was included. Pulmonary parenchymal disease severity was assessed for all the included studies using a semiquantitative system, the total severity score. All included CT scans were sent for interpretation by the commercially available AI algorithm, Aidoc. Discrepancies between AI and original radiology reports were resolved by 3 blinded radiologists, who rendered a final determination of indeterminate, positive, or negative. Results: A total of 78 studies were found to be discrepant, of which 13 (16.6%) were deemed indeterminate by readers and were excluded. The sensitivity and specificity of AI were 93.2% (95% CI, 90.6%-95.2%) and 99.6% (95% CI, 98.9%-99.9%), respectively. The accuracy of AI for all total severity score groups (mild, moderate, and severe) was high (98.4%, 96.7%, and 97.2%, respectively). Artificial intelligence was more accurate in PE detection on CT pulmonary angiography scans than on contrast-enhanced CT scans ( Conclusion: The AI algorithm demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for PE on contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients with COVID-19 regardless of parenchymal disease. Accuracy was significantly affected by the mean attenuation of the pulmonary vasculature. How this affects the legitimacy of the binary outcomes reported by AI is not yet known.

Identifiers

PMID37020901
PMCPMC9995315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.